More controversy surrounding 2014 engines

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would assume he is more "idea guy" and less "working drawings guy". You don't have to have a computer to express an idea and then have a small army to run off and make it happen.

Richard

Ya, I've met a fair few of them in my time

[S14]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In 1986 the turbo-engines generated an amount of power in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 bhp with a fuel consumption considerably lower than nowadays.

What data are you basing this on? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the numbers.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

But they were slower. Even when they turned up the boost for qualifying, they were slower. 1200 plus BHP eats a lot of fuel, wouldn't you say? And you certainly wouldn't get too far on a tankful with that much boost?

Mid 80s turbo cars slower than a normally aspirated car?

[Razor]

I just await the day when F1 decides to use nuclear fusion warp engines.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Razor

I just await the day when F1 decides to use nuclear fusion warp engines.

I await the day of gas turbines with electric transmission. Get rid of all those moving parts. Cars will be cheaper and faster once the tech is matured.

Sound will be better too....if you like cars that sounds like jet planes.

[S14]

Originally Posted by Razor

I just await the day when F1 decides to use nuclear fusion warp engines.

"Jean-Luc is faster than ye, Captain. Can ye confirm ye kin 'at message?"

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Mid 80s turbo cars slower than a normally aspirated car?

With a current normally aspirated car. But there were some occasions when the 'well down on power' Cossies, gave them a run for their money.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

With a current normally aspirated car. But there were some occasions when the 'well down on power' Cossies, gave them a run for their money.

Only in the early days, and only after they'd cooled their brakes!

(Ah the days when the cars could be heavily ballasted with water "for brake cooling" and the used fluids could be topped up after the race to make the weight. I think Brabham had 65 litres of brake cooling fluid at one stage!)

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

I think Brabham had 65 litres of brake cooling fluid at one stage!)

Well, at least it was a racing innovation that made it all the way to truck racing.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by S14

"Jean-Luc is faster than ye, Captain. Can ye confirm ye kin 'at message?"

ENGAGE!

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Razor

ENGAGE!

Good one.

[Gingers4Justice]

Why is it assumed that the new engines are going to sound so bad? Aren't they going to scream? Because surely they're still going to be running at a high RPM.

[Richard C]

First, I really loved the sound of the V10 engines. My stand out memory from the 2000 US GP was a point in which during the race a single McLaren was running alone down the front straight and you really could pick out just that one car. The sound at top speed while approaching the first turn and then going past me was incredible. However, the experience of "in person" vs. "watching on TV" is very different in many ways and "sound" is one of them. I don't think you can really get the true impact of the engines via TV.

So... I am curious as to how different the TV viewing experience will be in the new turbo era. I am assuming that is going to be the source of the vast majority of the spectators and that the spectating experience may not be that different for them.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Good one.

Make it so.

[Catingaround]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Why is it assumed that the new engines are going to sound so bad? Aren't they going to scream? Because surely they're still going to be running at a high RPM.

I thought they were talking about limiting the revs to something like 12K?

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by Catingaround

I thought they were talking about limiting the revs to something like 12K?

15k rev limit.

Can't see them sounding to bad personally.....

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Catingaround

I thought they were talking about limiting the revs to something like 12K?

Initially, yes. Then peopled moaned a bit, and it was put up to 15,000 rpm. The 80's turbos had maximum revs of around 12,000, maybe 12,500 revs. You need air valves for an engine of that size if you want to go much above that limit. So, the 2014 turbo engines will still have the highly irrelevant pneumatic valves.

[wnut]

... and they say traction control is banned.

Anyway throttle mapping for those interested.

http://www.f1technical.net/features/17899

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Initially, yes. Then peopled moaned a bit, and it was put up to 15,000 rpm. The 80's turbos had maximum revs of around 12,000, maybe 12,500 revs. You need air valves for an engine of that size if you want to go much above that limit. So, the 2014 turbo engines will still have the highly irrelevant pneumatic valves.

The series of EF engines, made by Renault in the mid '80s, produced between 11500 to 13000 RPM.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Initially, yes. Then peopled moaned a bit, and it was put up to 15,000 rpm. The 80's turbos had maximum revs of around 12,000, maybe 12,500 revs. You need air valves for an engine of that size if you want to go much above that limit. So, the 2014 turbo engines will still have the highly irrelevant pneumatic valves.

Renault invented or brought in pneumatic valves for these very engines!

With a little organisation it should be reasonably easy to run pneumatic valves in a road car engine.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The series of EF engines, made by Renault in the mid '80s, produced between 11500 to 13000 RPM.

Indeed. There's an rpm point at which the reciprocating mass of the valves and valve gear is just unable to keep the valves opening and closing at the required intervals (Ducati has a Desmodromic system (patented) that both opens and shuts the valves, but that's another story). The more mass there is, the lower that rpm limit will be. This is why many small road going motorcycle engines (typically 400 to 600cc) are able to reach 17 or 18,000 rpm without pneumatic valves.

Originally Posted by wnut

Renault invented or brought in pneumatic valves for these very engines

Yes.

Originally Posted by wnut

With a little organisation it should be reasonably easy to run pneumatic valves in a road car engine.

Why? Road car engines don't reach engine speeds that would justify over-complicating the valve-gear actuation in such a way.

It's hardly likely that we will see many road going car engines exceeding around 8 or 9,000 rpm. Typically they reach 6 to 7,000 rpm. High rpm also equals disproportionately increased C02 output (hence Honda's deletion of some of its high revving car engines from certain markets) which is definitely a no-no in todays society.

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Indeed. There's an rpm point at which the reciprocating mass of the valves and valve gear is just unable to keep the valves opening and closing at the required intervals (Ducati has a Desmodromic system (patented) that both opens and shuts the valves, but that's another story). The more mass there is, the lower that rpm limit will be. This is why many small road going motorcycle engines (typically 400 to 600cc) are able to reach 17 or 18,000 rpm without pneumatic valves.
.

Mercedes were running a desmodronic valve system in F1 and sports cars in the 50s.
Agreed pneumatic valve actuation is unlikele to appear on road cars anytime soon, if ever. But I can remember the same thing being said about supercharging and turbo charging.
Active discouragement of advanced technology in auto engines is a bit like discouraging more and more exotic development in computer chips.
You never know when the thing you are banning will turn out to be the next major breakthrough.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Mercedes were running a desmodronic valve system in F1 and sports cars in the 50s.
Agreed pneumatic valve actuation is unlikele to appear on road cars anytime soon, if ever. But I can remember the same thing being said about supercharging and turbo charging.
Active discouragement of advanced technology in auto engines is a bit like discouraging more and more exotic development in computer chips.
You never know when the thing you are banning will turn out to be the next major breakthrough.

Turbos appeared on road cars back in the sixties (Oldsmobile turbo jetfire). Renault had turbos on their WW1 plane engines!

On road cars desmodromic systems would be too noisy (I have a Ducati 916 that confirms this point). On modern car engines, variable rate valve springs avoid valve bounce, they may also be fitted with multiple springs. Something that could not be said for earlier types of valve spring designs.

These days the trend is more towards developing electromagnetic valve operation.

[spider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UcdQ...feature=relmfu - just had to share this. Amateur footage at a Monza test in 1992 - oh how i wish F1 engines sounded like that Honda now...

[MJones94]

Does the 15k rev limit mean a rev-cap limit set to 15,000rpm, like the limit we have at the moment at 18,000rpm? I hope engine development can push the revs higher, I like seeing the progress in revs, power and torque etc over seasons.